During a recent visit by a European head of government to Washington, the atmosphere was described as frosty by those in the entourage from Europe. Obama didn’t find the time for even a little small talk, the sources said, and “it seemed to some like an appointment with a lawyer.”
Obama angered Nicolas Sarkozy by choosing to dine with his family instead of with France’s then-president during his visit to Paris. The Polish and Czech heads of state were informed by telephone by the president that a long-planned missile defense system would not be installed in their countries. … An African head of government said during a visit to Washington that he longed for the days of George W. Bush. At least with him, he said, one knew where one stood.

In what marks an enormous shift in US surveillance policy, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) has announced that
the White House will end all surveillance against US allies, and the
Senate will follow up on that with a “major review into all
intelligence-collection programs.”Feinstein termed the surveillance a “big problem” that was doubly so because, at least to hear the White House tell it,
they didn’t even know it was going on until Edward Snowden’s leaks to
the media started uncovering the depths of the surveillance.

NSA documents obtained by the German news magazine Der Spiegel
show that the NSA tapped Merkel’s phone starting in 2002, when she was
chair of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The documents confirm
that this surveillance continued for over a decade, at least until US
President Barack Obama’s visit to Berlin in June 2013.A report in the German tabloid Bild reveals, moreover, that
Obama was informed of the spying on Merkel by NSA chief Gen. Keith
Alexander in 2010. The spying nonetheless continued for three years.

Monday, October 28, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri visits
with Barack this week, Ayad Allawi tells the BBC he sees no end to the
violence, a faux-test takes place in DC, and much more.

Starting with a protest. There was a stupid and time wasting one on
Saturday. No one is helped by lying so let's tell the truth.

Amy Goodman can't. She was lapping at the protest today, pretending she
gave a damn about anything despite spending five years offering cover
and excuses for the administration. Democracy Now! will never
live down their Libyan War coverage. Amy better grasp it's the cancer
consuming her show. She compromised herself and that's why, here on the
left, there is a growing chorus of objection to her and her talk show. Today on the show, she played bits of three speeches including a message from NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden read by Jesselyn Radack:

We are here to remind our government officials that they are public
servants, not private investigators. This is about the
unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral actions
of the modern-day surveillance state and how we all must work together
to remind the government to stop them. It’s about our right to know, our
right to associate freely, and to live in a free and open democratic
society. We are witnessing an American moment in which ordinary people
from
high schools to high office stand up to oppose a dangerous trend in
government. We are told that what is unconstitutional is not illegal,
but we
will not be fooled. We have not forgotten that the Fourth Amendment in
our Bill of Rights prohibits government not only from searching our
personal effects without a warrant, but from seizing them in the first
place, and doing so in secret. Holding to this principle, we declare
that mass surveillance has no place in this country. It is time for
reform. Elections are coming and we are watching you. Thank you.

If that's what Ed Snowden wrote ("from Edward Snowden"? really?), how
awful. We support Ed, we call him "Ed" which is how he has introduced
himself in his first video taped interview (and has introduced himself
since). What he did was brave and needed.

That statement? It's neither brave nor needed. (That's what Democracy Now! played in full. It's an excerpt. The full statement is here. It's not any better.)

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me also ask you about something else, and this is
this brouhaha that's grown up since the German Chancellor Merkel
revealed that the NSA had been tapping in and listening to her phone
calls. Did we go too far?

REPRESENTATIVE
DARRELL ISSA: Well, remember, the NSA works for the President. So it's a
question of, did the President want to hear what Chancellor Merkel was
saying, because through his National Security Advisor he knew or should
have known. The question of whether or not the four eyes, whether or not
our key allies are being listened to is an easy one. No, we have an
agreement not to do it.

You spineless cowards pretending to applaud whistle-blowing but you
can't even protest US President Barack Obama because you're too cowardly
and whorish.

As Issa rightly noted, the NSA works for the President.

If you're unhappy with what the NSA is doing -- I am, I'm appalled --
then the person you hold accountable is the president of the United
States. That's true if he or she is Anglo White, African-American,
Anglo Latino, Asian-Americn, Irish-American, bi- or multi-racial, gay,
straight, bi-sexual, you name it.

"You" should be implied but the "you" is Barack -- a name Snowden didn't
mention, a name avoided in the push and promotion for the 'rally' and a
name never mentioned by the three speakers The Compromised Goodman
played

You can't call out illegal spying if you can't hold accountable the person responsible.

An extraordinary amount of pressure on the people involved not to
talk. And an extraordinary amount of pressure on anyone in the
government--the military side, the political side--not to say anything
outside of official channels. I mean, to the point where people that
we've known for years would call people who were no longer in their
positions, and they would call someone else that we knew, and messages
would be delivered like that because there couldn't be any trail linking
you directly to our story.

The administration is
cracking down so hard on leakers: no one wants to put anything in
writing, everybody is scared to talk over the phone, people want to meet
in person--all of that makes it that much harder to investigate
anything.

I know it doesn't fit in with Dan Choi's Up With People moment of
hey-we're-all-in-it-together b.s., but that's what the objections are
really about. Al Arabiya reports:

Saudi Arabia and Iraq had 7.8 billion wiretapping incidents from the
NSA each, while Egypt and Jordan had 1.8 billion and 1.6 billion
respectively, according to Cryptome, a digital library that publishes leaked documents.Additionally, over 1.7 billion wiretapping incidents were recorded in Iran.

It's not just the offense we feel over the violation of our own
individual privacy, its how this invasion destroys democracy. CBS News
had to take those precautions because of the illegal spying. The war on
whistle-blowers was not addressed from the stage of the faux-text
because Barack's declared war on whistle-blowers. As Mike Masnick (TechDirt) noted months ago:

Instead, as we've discussed repeatedly, President Obama has been the most aggressive President ever
in attacking whistleblowers and bringing the full weight of the law
down on them. In fact, in 2012, rather than promote protecting
whistleblowers in his campaign, the campaign bragged about how it cracked down on whistleblowers:

President Obama has done more than any other administration to
forcefully pursue and address leaks of classified national security
information.... The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many
cases under the Espionage Act as all other administrations combined.
Under the President, the Justice Department has prosecuted six cases
regarding national security leaks. Before he took office, federal
prosecutors had used the Espionage Act in only three cases.

The above paragraph is true -- and we've pointed it out in the past as
well -- but we thought it was shameful, not something worth bragging
about. Furthermore, since he was elected, President Obama has never praised a single federal employee who was a whistleblower.
When asked by a reporter from the Huffington Post for an example of
President Obama supporting a whistleblower, the White House refused to
respond.

President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider
Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public
attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security
bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide,
including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the
Education and Agriculture departments.

And, as the reporters note, the program may emphasize classified
material, but actually goes way beyond that to cover leaks of just about
anything. Furthermore, it encourages the ridiculous view that leaks
which expose questionable behavior to the public are the same as aiding the enemy.

You can't support a free press and stay silent about Barack, sorry. It
doesn't work that way. Reporters have to go through cloak and dagger
right now for the most basic stories. Reporters are being targeted by
the White House. This is as outrageous as the administration's attacks
on the Fourth Amendment and just as damaging.

It was pathetic. "Thousands" turned out. That's generous but they
didn't matter. It could have been 10,000 and they still wouldn't have
mattered.

That's because 'the leaders' had a 'threat.' The 2014 elections are a-coming and we won't be voting for you.

Those elections aren't even 12 months away. And I seriously doubt all
50 states are trembling over the people who showed up at the faux-test
Saturday.

One speaker insisted, "And we will hold our public officials accountable!" Yeah, at least the ones not named Barack, right?

Let's pretend I'm a leader. Let's leave politics for a moment. We're
all in a band and I'm the lead singer. We're at a club, you and the
others are making fantastic music, I step up the microphone to sing our
great song and suddenly I'm Leslie (Wendel Meldrum) on Seinfeld
-- the low talker. No one can hear what I'm singing and, since this
isn't the mid-80s, the incomprehensible delivery of Michael Stipe is no
longer in fashion. People who planned to sing along are bored. They
want me off the stage. You've done everything you're supposed to do but
I failed to deliver and brought us all down.

That's what Saturday's faux-test was.

It was a complete and utter failure. Basic protest politics: Leaders
have to motivate. If you want people calling out the spying, you've got
to speak strongly. If you want hesitant people to join your chorus,
you've got lead with strength.

Failure to call out Barack is not leadership.

Do you get how fake and ridiculous this faux-test was?

If not, you missed Dennis Kucinich's ridiculous speech. In fairness, he
was echoing the fat Jewish woman who shouldn't have been on stage since
she publicly attacked Ed Snowden. This isn't about one party, this
isn't about . . . The weak turn out, the weak enthusiasm from those who
did is in direct contrast to when Kucinich was able to call out Oval
Office occupant Bully Boy Bush.

Dennis, try to remember, you can't stand tall when you're on your knees.

US House Rep Justin Amash could and did mention Barack, even noted
Barack's efforts to stop the Amash-Conyers amendment. There were a few
people present in the crowd who got what needed to be confronted -- many
wearing large plaster Barack heads. But the leaders? They were cowards
who pulled in a crowd and had no idea what to do with them. The
faux-test's biggest accomplishment? Ensuring that an announcement of a
second effort will be met with even less enthusiasm. That event helped
no one. It certainly did nothing to raise awareness of the targeting of reporter James Risen.

Iraqis in Samarra on March 15th with a message for the world (photo via Iraqi Spring MC).Obama,If you Cannot Hear UsCan you Not See Us?

The Iraqi people show more courage than the leaders of the DC faux-test.

In addition to ordering the deaths of protesters, he's
paying, arming and outfitting Shi'ite militias to kill Sunnis in Iraq. Last month, Tim Arango (New York Times) broke the news that Nouri was funding, arming and outfitting Shi'ite militias. Arango observed:

In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky
calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can
maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and,
ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are
scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say
members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and
allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.

That's the background, the ugly reality, that too many in America just
don't want to deal with. They're aided by a lazy and compliant media
that runs interference for the White House (which really doesn't want
Iraq on the radar). Life just got a little harder for the White House
and Nouri. The New York Times just published online (in print tomorrow) Ramzy Mardini and Emma Sky's "Maliki's Democratic Farce:" Mardini is with the Institute for the Study of War. Sky is with Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and she was also a political advisor to US Gen Ray Odierno from 2007 to 2010.

The political crisis Mr. Maliki triggered has endured, undermining years
of American efforts to integrate Sunni Arabs into the Iraqi political
process. Tensions have worsened as the civil war in neighboring Syria
has turned into a sectarian, regional proxy war. The instability has
breathed new life into Iraq’s Sunni insurgency, rejuvenating the coffers
and confidence of militants, and eroding the cooperation of tribal
leaders, which was crucial during the American “surge” of 2007.

Violence in Iraq has risen to levels not seen since 2008, now
approaching 1,000 fatalities a month; Al Qaeda in Iraq has gained
strength; the threat of a Shiite militia comeback has increased; and
fear of a return to cycles of sectarian retribution is high.

In the midst of this storm, Mr. Maliki is scheduled to return to the
White House this week, seeking security assistance from the United
States. Combating terrorism is a mutual interest. But as Mr. Maliki
prepares to seek a third term in 2014, Mr. Obama should insist that he
adhere to democratic norms as a condition of American aid.

The White House likes to pretend that Nouri -- like the Iraq War -- is
Bully Boy Bush's issues. Hell no. It is true that Nouri was the puppet
the Bush administration installed in 2006. (The Iraqi Parliament wanted
Ibrahim al-Jafaari.)

But then came a little thing called the 2010 parliament elections.

Iraqiya, headed by Ayad Allawi, won those elections but the White House
refused to honor democracy or respect the process or Iraqi voters.

Sunday, Allawi was on BBC Radio 4 speaking with James Naughtie. Excerpt.Ayad Allawi: They are advocating sectarianism and they are supported
by Iran. Unfortunately, there was a missed chance when the last
elections were won by Iraqiya . Iraqiya was denied both by the Iranians
and the United States the chance to form a government. [. . .] Iraqiya
then had a lot of Sunni members -- Shias, Sunnis and Christians. We
are secular, nonsectarian groups. Unfortunately this has also
contributed to the ill feelings of a lot of Sunni constituents. And
this is where the government sticking to the chair and Mr. Maliki
sticking to his position, he does not accept the Constitution. He is
the commander in chief of armed forces, he is the Minister of Interior
and the chief of security as prime minister, he is the head of national
security so-called agency. So he runs all security. He runs them on a
party basis. James Naughtie: You're describing something which sounds, in your description, rather like one-man rule.Ayad Allawi: It is, it is. The explosions in Baghdad today are a
catolog of failures and, God forbid, what happens in Syria is going to
have an impact on Iraq -- let alone what's happening in the region. [. . .]James Naughtie: Do you believe Iraq in its current form can survive this violence?Ayad Allawi: No, it can't. It can't. And the violence will
increase, I'm sure of this. The problems will increase and I don't
think the elections are going to solve the issue.James Naughtie: You're saying that you think and this is a terribly
depressing conclusion for you to reach, that there's no way back.Ayad Allawi: We'll try. We'll continue to try to resolve the
situation as peaceful as possible but I cannot see this existing now, I
cannot see the scope of this. I can see only violence on the increase
because of the loss of the [foundation] that security relies upon. And
that's why I believe frankly speaking I don't have a very nice picture
for the future.

I've added "[foundation]" -- I can't make out the word he's saying.
It's a bad connection (you have six days to stream and then it's gone).

The White House can't pin 2010 on Bully Boy Bush. He was long gone. This was Barack. From John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

The White House did much more than acquiesce. Acquiesce would be their
being silent when Nouri refused to step down as prime minister -- just
being silent. Instead, they backed him. For over eight months, the
White House backed Nouri in his petty tantrum.

And as Barack prepares to meet with the despot the Iraqi people rejected
but that Barack kept in office, America needs to be paying attention.

The US government overturned the votes of the Iraqi people in 2010.

It is why the violence increased.

So this visit matters for that reason alone.

But grasp, they didn't just back him. Barack authorized Americans
in Iraq to broker a contract that would give Nouri a second term. The
contract was The Erbil Agreement. Nouri got in writing that he would
get a second term and the leaders of the other political blocs got
promises in writing from Nouri.

But when it was signed and Parliament finally met on November 11, 2010,
Nouri refused to implement. He gave a song and dance about how he'd do
it but it couldn't be done now. So Ayad Allawi walked out. And the
President of the United States, Barack Obama, phoned him. From that
day's snapshot:

Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports
one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President
Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his
rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm
the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post --
newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr.
Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw
U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would
retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with
knowledge of the phone call."

This is not a minor issue. Barack destroyed democracy in Iraq by
refusing to back the winner in the election. In addition, he set in
place the cycle of violence by failing to demand that Nouri honor the
US-brokered contract.

Nouri is a a beast, a rabid dog. Barack took him off the chain the Bush
administration kept him on and let Nouri run wild. No one died at Camp
Ashraf while Bush had Nouri on a tight leash. Those deaths happen
after Barack becomes president.

Lara Logan: Since the US invasion, the
camp's roughly 3,000 residents have been living under US protection.
That ended in January when the Iraqis took control under the security
agreement. Now the US appears to have washed their hands of the people
of Ashraf.

Hillary Clinton (speaking at the State Dept): It is a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve.

Lara
Logan: Images captured by the inside Ashraf showed the dead and
wounded. Residents told CBS News at least 11 people were killed,
hundreds wounded and thirty arrested. The number's impossible to verify
because the Iraqi government has sealed off the camp. The attack was
seen as the latest sign American influence in Iraq is waning as Iranian
influence rises. Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his
government increasingly pro-Iranian.

Camp Ashraf in Iraq is now empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty) as of last month.
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). That's the attack Lara Logan reported on. In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1st. Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.

Barack has indulged Nouri.

As a result, many Iraqis have died.

This is on Barack.

He never should have sided with second-place Nouri in 2010 and should have insisted that the Constitution be followed.

Some of his defenders -- very few because so few pay attention to Iraq -- will insist that Nouri had court verdicts backing him.

Nouri controls the Baghdad court. Nouri pulled those decisions out --
those decisions, those rulings which came down before the election.
Before. Courts do not make secret rulings.

If a court rules on some aspect of an election, it does so publicly.

The fact that these were secret rulings -- which never would have been
made public if Nouri had come in first -- go the fact that Nouri has the
Baghdad court in his pocket and it's not a real court and has no real
independence.

Alsumaria reports
today that Barzani says: No, you can't. If a new law is not passed,
Barzani says, the KRG will not participate in parliamentary elections --
that would mean three provinces would not vote.

That announcement is not surprising. When al-Nujaifi made his original
statement, it was treated as "issue resolved." But we pointed out here
how difficult it was for Iraqi MPs to agree and how the notion that a
previous law could be used seemed very optimistic.